The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
WOLF.J
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Both A Triangle Without Three Angles And A One-Sided Pentagon Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
05days11hours09minutes05seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 249 times Debate No: 107221
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.
*1st round is for acceptance.
*By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to.
*I request that moderators remove crappy votes.

Full Resolution
Both a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon exist.


Pro
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Pro also has the BoP to show that a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon exist.

Con
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.


Definitions

both - used to refer to two things.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

exist - have objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

angle - the space between two intersecting lines or surfaces at the point where they meet.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

without - in the absence of.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

three - equivalent to the sum of one and two.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

triangle - a musical instrument consisting of a steel rod bent into a thing nearly shaped like a triangle and sounded by being struck with a small steel rod.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

one-sided - unfairly dealing with only one side of a contentious issue; biased.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pentagon - the pentagonal building and its entire staff serving as the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, near Washington, DC.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
WOLF.J

Con

Why this is 4 rounds, God knows, I'll end it in one.

Tri- means 3,
Pent- means 5.

Don't tell me I'm wrong.
If I'm wrong, then pigs fly, pizzas can talk, and I can swim up a bloody waterfall.

D1CKHEAD!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for taking this debate, Con.
The opposite of thanks for not using round 1 to accept, per the rules, Con.
Con, by accepting this debate, has agreed to the definitions from round 1.
Reminder to voters and moderators, Opt-In voting = crappy vote removal.

*A Triangle Without Three Angles*

While the high-pitched chime of a triangle can provide a pleasant note to a musical composition or even make people salivate with the prospect of an impending meal, it utterly fails to serve as an object with three angles.

When triangles are produced, typically in a factory, the steel rod that will eventually compose the structure of the triangle is bent in only two places, rendering the completed triangle with only TWO spaces between intersecting surfaces at the point where those surfaces meet; triangles only have two angles.




*A One-Sided Pentagon*

The U.S. Department of Defense is unwavering in its support of America's values around the world, leaving this particular pentagon very one-sided on most global military conflicts.

"[We] will unapologetically represent America"s values and belief in democracy...for resisting authoritarian trends, contesting radical ideologies, and serving as bulwarks against instability...we must prioritize what is most important to field a lethal Joint Force...[which] articulates our strategy to compete, deter, and win..."
https://www.defense.gov...

This quote is directly from the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the U.S. Department of Defense which indicates a very one-sided pentagon on issues ranging from military force against "radical" ideologies and "instability" to the success of the U.S. in economic, technological, and innovative competitions with other global entities.

The DoD is clear.
This pentagon is one-sided, because it's biased towards the United States, its values, and its interests on nearly every issue.



*Conclusion*

It's clear.
Both a triangle without three angles AND a one-sided pentagon exist.
See above.

Con?
WOLF.J

Con

They are not actual shapes you pillock, example if i named my kid triangle, is he a triangle. Seriously fam cmon!! If a triangles doesn't have 3 angles than it is no longer a tri angle, same with all angles. Kurt angle aside...
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for that lengthy response.
Con's brought up some points that I feel should be addressed.
One of those points is that I'm a pillock.
While British insults are fun, debating a massive fanny isn't.

*Responses to Con*

Con gripes:
"Why this is 4 rounds, God knows, I'll end it in one."

My response:
The debate is 4 rounds, because I had wrongly assumed that the person who might accept my debate challenge could take an intelligent position on two falsisms, which could have required 3 rounds after accepting.
Also, you won't end this debate in one round, because voters must use opt-in voting standards and they, unlike you, understand the sentence "By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to."


Con defines:
"Tri- means 3, Pent- means 5."

My response:
What does "the definitions are agreed to" mean Con?


Con childishly whines:
"Don't tell me I'm wrong."

My response:
You're incorrect.
While your definitions for prefixes may be correct, your application of them to the relevant terms of this debate is incorrect.
You've agreed to the definitions of triangle and pentagon irrespective of your prefix analysis.


Con continues:
"If I'm wrong, then pigs fly, pizzas can talk, and I can swim up a bloody waterfall."

My response:
Ok.








Con yells and runs:
"D1CKHEAD!!!"

My response:
5H1TFACE!


After making my case for a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon...

Con reprimands:
"They are not actual shapes you pillock."

My response:
Are they actual representations of the agreed-to definitions, Con?


Con continues:
"[For] example[,] if i named my kid triangle, is he a triangle[?]"

My response:
Yes.
While the name Raul isn't very common, I know a Raul.
While the name Triangle is virtually nonexistent, one could still know a triangle, perhaps your kid.


Con ponders:
"If a triangle doesn't have 3 angles than it is no longer a triangle."

My response:
Except for if it's a musical instrument consisting of a steel rod bent at only two spaces where two surfaces of the steel rod meet.


*Conclusion*

Con hasn't been able to cast any doubt on my case for a triangle without three angles or a one-sided pentagon.
The resolution has been affirmed.
WOLF.J

Con

You're so pathetic n sad for making that. Get a life, at least i have a degree, what you got, nuttin u wanker
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for your 3rd round, Con.
Clearly 10,000 characters cannot accommodate Con's arguments.
Con touched on a few things, and ignored a lot.
I'll point it all out and end this thing.

*Drops*

Con never contested that triangles are bent in only two places or that this current pentagon is biased toward the U.S. and its interests.

Con basically drops the entire Pro case, so Opt-In voters must vote Pro.


*Response to Con*

Con attempts insults:
"You're so pathetic n sad for making that. "

My response:
Aside from the ambiguous antecedent, this makes no sense.
Whether Con is claiming that I'm "pathetic n sad" for making my entire last round or for making those hilarious images, the claim is unwarranted.
Being a successful debater on a debate site isn't pathetic; it's virtuous and beyond Con's capabilities.


Con councils:
"Get a life."

My response:
I always find it funny when people tell a Biology teacher to get a life.
I might have more lives on slides in the Biology lab than anyone else you might tell to "get a life."
Sorry Con, I have so many lives, your advice to get one is needless.


Con compares:
"at least i have a degree."

My response:
Yeah, a high degree of stupidity.
Also, I've had my masters degree for over 10 years, and I'm a certified teacher in three subjects in a thriving school district in Maryland, USA.


Con rhetorically inquires:
"what you got, nuttin u wanker"

My response:
Well, see above.
Also, I hope it's obvious that the extent to which I may or may not masturbate is unrelated to whether or not I have a degree, so the British insult of "wanker" can be ignored as merely a red herring from Con.
I'm saying, even if I were a wanker, I could still have a degree.


*Conclusion*

Voters, please vote seriously and with the Opt-In voting standards.
Both a triangle without three angles and a one-sided pentagon exist, and Con has done nothing to cast any doubt on that.
Also, my insults were better.

Vote Pro.
WOLF.J

Con

I highly doubt you are a biologist, no way would you have the time to create those pathetic pictures, yr just a sad lonely man, lonelier than a recluse. Vote pro for he needs it, the sad fvck.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 weeks ago
WOLF.J
hahaha
Posted by Ragnar 3 weeks ago
Ragnar
Humor can and should be a part of life, religion, and politics.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 weeks ago
MagicAintReal
@Ragnar
"Pentagons, the absurdity of pro's arguments made me laugh."

My work here is done.
Thanks again for posting a funny RFD, yet staying focused on the topic at hand.
Great vote and RFD.
Posted by Ragnar 3 weeks ago
Ragnar
---RDF---
10k characters may not have been enough for con to properly express his ideas, as evidenced by his activity in the comment section. Conduct leaned towards pro, but not by a significant enough margin after he joined in the insults. The English language itself could not contain him, using such standings as "n" and "u" in place of conventional words, and making I statements lowercase to not be mistaken for L's.

For pro to win he needed to prove two things, con could have cast doubt on either to win.

1. Triangles, even the definition of angle provided was against pro, "the space between two intersecting lines." Con failed to exploit this weakness, allowing the number of bends in the metal to serve as the angles.

2. Pentagons, the absurdity of pro's arguments made me laugh. Con could have pointed to the picture of the building for angles on it, or used pro's own logic of political angles, since anything to imply America has conflicting values would prove the pentagon to be multi-sided (certainly if members of differing political parties work there). Heck con could have made a case for the ghost of a 9/11 hijacker haunting the building...

3. Further points of discourse... Pro gave photographic evidence to prove as requested that "pigs fly, pizzas can talk, and [con] can swim up a bloody waterfall."
I am in awe of con's swimming abilities!

4. Con sidestepped the obvious victories, and opted for the O.J. Simpson defense (cue video) https://www.youtube.com...
His case as best I can understand it, was that if pro masturbates, triangles must have three sides and pentagons five. Pro was unable to refute this, so opted instead to use a red haring by claiming that he both has the stamima to wank and do other things with his life, which is preposterous! However con took the bait, and let meaning of the topic shift to something outside the confines of the debate and thus not an instant victory for him.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 weeks ago
MagicAintReal
Preemptively, thanks for the vote Ragnar.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 weeks ago
MagicAintReal
Dude, your D is probably so small given that you have clear inadequacy issues and, well, you're British, so unless you have some microscopic D sucker, your D will not be sucked by anyone.

It's also clear that you're a lowlife and I'm flattered that my lowlifeness disgusts you and garners your pity.

The truth is that I have a great life, a beautiful wife, three kids, a nice town house, a respected career as both a teacher and a coach, and when I'm at work and students are standardized testing, I'm able to have fun on DDO.

I do debate actual realistic debates, just check my history.
This debate isn't stupidity; it's thought-provoking.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 weeks ago
WOLF.J
SMD you waste of space, i'm pretty much a lowlife and even I'm disgusted by your lowlifeness, I pity you. I feel sorry for n i'm on antidepressants. You have NO LIFE. GOOD DAY, WHY DON'T U DEBATE ACTUAL REALISTIC DEBATES INSTED OF THIS STUPIDITY.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 weeks ago
MagicAintReal
You used the words "pillock" and "wanker" and you expect me not to notice that you're British.
Bullocks!
Posted by WOLF.J 3 weeks ago
WOLF.J
I WANDER HOW u KNOW I'M BRITISH, YOU BEEN STALKING MY DEBATES, YOU SAD FVCK. I'M NO LONGER POSTIN IN THIS DBTE COS U ARE A WASTE OF SPACE. BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Posted by WOLF.J 3 weeks ago
WOLF.J
I WANDER HOW u KNOW I'M BRITISH, YOU BEEN STALKING MY DEBATES, YOU SAD FVCK. I'M NO LONGER POSTIN IN THIS DBTE COS U ARE A WASTE OF SPACE. BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 weeks ago
Ragnar
MagicAintRealWOLF.JTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments...